Abstract
Background: Selection of Sustainable Suppliers is a key term in sustainable supply chain management. This is the reason to choose the supplier who will support the company to implement sustainability in its business, especially in the supply chain.
Objective: The aim of this paper is to establish a new innovative model for decision-making based on a fuzzy approach.
Methods: This decision-making problem is solved by applying multi-criteria decision-making since there are several criteria according to which a decision should be made: economic, social, and environmental. In order to make the final decision on the supply chain better and safer, the social criteria were modified in this paper, adding ethical criteria. The example with modified social criteria in this paper was shown on the example of the company "Voćar" Brčko, which deals with the production of food products. In this paper, the fuzzy Measurement Alternatives and Ranking, according to the Compromise Solution Method, was used.
Results: The findings have shown that supplier A1 has the best results, which were confirmed with the first sensitivity analysis. However, the second sensitivity analysis has shown that supplier A5 was better than supplier A1 in 14 scenarios. Due to these findings, no unanimous decision can be made about which supplier among the two, in this case, would contribute more.
Conclusion: This paper has shown that the selection of sustainable suppliers is crucial for any company focused on the principles of sustainability in business. Moreover, this paper has shown that it is sometimes very difficult to select just one supplier.
Keywords: Sustainable supply chain, supplier selection, fuzzy logic, fuzzy MARCOS method, MCDM, food sector.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.066]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2019.7275]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0172]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2019.1582367]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.02.011]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117956]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101532]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2016.1269246]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1203]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.31181/rme200101034c]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1625983]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/434168] [PMID: 27379267]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10072543]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.013]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.12.017]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.011]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118043]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.070]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/logistics4010004]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.31181/oresta2001072v]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math8030457]